- From: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:15:53 +0000
- To: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@east.sun.com>
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
At 22:42 09/11/00 -0500, Eve L. Maler wrote: >Fragment identifier languages are associated with media types, per RFC >2396. That is, we don't have any control over how XHTML is served, but if >it is served as */xml, then an XPointer is supposed to work with it. This >is just the nature of Web architecture... However, you can see the seeds >of an idea to get more flexibility in the notion of XPointer "schemes." > > Eve I just feel it is important that XPointer 1.0 be compatible with XHTML (even if that means adding schemes to it) - after all it is perfectly capable of addressing parts of XHTML documents. Matthew Wilson >At 10:25 PM 11/9/00 +0000, Matthew Wilson wrote: >>I may be missing the point here, but... >> >>XPointer introduction says that it applies to >> "a resource of Internet media type text/xml or application/xml" >> >>http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xptr-20000607.html#N598 >> >>XHTML is agnostic about its media type... >> >>"...general recommended MIME labeling for XML-based applications has yet >>to be resolved." >> >>and >> >>"XHTML Documents " ... "may be labeled with the Internet Media Type >>"text/html"". >> >>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#media >> >>So XPointer may or may not be usable with XHTML, is that correct? >> >>This seems to be quite a severe shortcoming (assuming my interpretation >>is right). I think that the acceptance of XLink/XPointer technologies >>will be affected by how easily they can be added to those already existing. >> >>Matthew Wilson > >-- >Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 >Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ east.sun.com
Received on Friday, 10 November 2000 03:16:20 UTC